Anne of Exeter's Marraige and Richard

The excerpt below is from Susan Higginbotham's facebook entry:

" Richard III's Parliament was later to claim that St Leger married Anne "by seditious means." Ironically, if the remains at Leicester are identified as Richard III's, Richard will have his sister's "seditious" marriage to St. Leger to thank for it, for it is the DNA of their descendant that is being used in testing.

I was wondering why the marriage was claimed to be "seditious" by Richard's parliament? The couple would have to get Edward VI's blessing to marry.....So it seems strange that the marriage was not approved by Richard. Also didn't St Leger fight against Richard at the Battle of Bosworth?


Ishita

RIII had him executed in November 1483.

--- In , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> The excerpt below is from Susan Higginbotham's facebook entry:
>
> " Richard III's Parliament was later to claim that St Leger married Anne "by seditious means." Ironically, if the remains at Leicester are identified as Richard III's, Richard will have his sister's "seditious" marriage to St. Leger to thank for it, for it is the DNA of their descendant that is being used in testing.
>
> I was wondering why the marriage was claimed to be "seditious" by Richard's parliament? The couple would have to get Edward VI's blessing to marry.....So it seems strange that the marriage was not approved by Richard. Also didn't St Leger fight against Richard at the Battle of Bosworth?
>
>
> Ishita
>

wrote:
>
> RIII had him executed in November 1483.

Carol adds:

With good reason. He participated in the so-called Buckingham's Rebellion. But Richard had evidently stripped St. Leger of the offices he'd held under Edward. I don't know the details or the reasons.

I've heard that St. Leger was Anne's lover while she was still married to the Lancastrian Duke of Exeter, arranged by her parents, or at least her father, when she was a child of seven. Edward, who hated Exeter, seems to have been complaisant about his sister's liaison (as Richard, I think, would not have been), but whether Anne had Edward's consent to marry a commoner or married him in secret, I don't know. I doubt that Richard approved of the marriage, but what he thought of St/ Leger personally is impossible to say.

St. Leger seems to have been loyal to Edward but not to Richard. Presumably, he thought that his fortunes would have been better if Edward V had become king. Since he lost his head for his treason, I'd say that he was wrong.

Carol

Carol

There was also the question of the Exeter estates. Richard's sister Anne did not long survive her marriage to St Leger (and nor did her imprisoned first husband). She died giving birth to a baby daughter. As a result of the death of Anne's daughter by the Duke of Exeter, and of acts of parliament passed by Edward IV which had got round the effects on his sister of her husband's attainder by vesting the duchy in her and her legitimate issue, that baby became the duchess of Exeter although she hadn't a scrap of Holland blood.
During the child's minority the Exeter estates were parcelled out between St Leger and the Marquess Dorset, who had been granted the child's wardship.
The duchy could otherwise have been claimed by the offspring of the late duke's sister, Lord Neville.
Marie


--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> wrote:
> >
> > RIII had him executed in November 1483.
>
> Carol adds:
>
> With good reason. He participated in the so-called Buckingham's Rebellion. But Richard had evidently stripped St. Leger of the offices he'd held under Edward. I don't know the details or the reasons.
>
> I've heard that St. Leger was Anne's lover while she was still married to the Lancastrian Duke of Exeter, arranged by her parents, or at least her father, when she was a child of seven. Edward, who hated Exeter, seems to have been complaisant about his sister's liaison (as Richard, I think, would not have been), but whether Anne had Edward's consent to marry a commoner or married him in secret, I don't know. I doubt that Richard approved of the marriage, but what he thought of St/ Leger personally is impossible to say.
>
> St. Leger seems to have been loyal to Edward but not to Richard. Presumably, he thought that his fortunes would have been better if Edward V had become king. Since he lost his head for his treason, I'd say that he was wrong.
>
> Carol
>
> Carol
>

Sheesh! St Leger's daughter with Anne died too? Were there any Neville's left to have inherited the lands?
So the "seditious" part was applied after the duchess was dead?
Is it due to St Leger's rebellion so that his daughter cannot inherit the lands?

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> There was also the question of the Exeter estates. Richard's sister Anne did not long survive her marriage to St Leger (and nor did her imprisoned first husband). She died giving birth to a baby daughter. As a result of the death of Anne's daughter by the Duke of Exeter, and of acts of parliament passed by Edward IV which had got round the effects on his sister of her husband's attainder by vesting the duchy in her and her legitimate issue, that baby became the duchess of Exeter although she hadn't a scrap of Holland blood.
> During the child's minority the Exeter estates were parcelled out between St Leger and the Marquess Dorset, who had been granted the child's wardship.
> The duchy could otherwise have been claimed by the offspring of the late duke's sister, Lord Neville.
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > RIII had him executed in November 1483.
> >
> > Carol adds:
> >
> > With good reason. He participated in the so-called Buckingham's Rebellion. But Richard had evidently stripped St. Leger of the offices he'd held under Edward. I don't know the details or the reasons.
> >
> > I've heard that St. Leger was Anne's lover while she was still married to the Lancastrian Duke of Exeter, arranged by her parents, or at least her father, when she was a child of seven. Edward, who hated Exeter, seems to have been complaisant about his sister's liaison (as Richard, I think, would not have been), but whether Anne had Edward's consent to marry a commoner or married him in secret, I don't know. I doubt that Richard approved of the marriage, but what he thought of St/ Leger personally is impossible to say.
> >
> > St. Leger seems to have been loyal to Edward but not to Richard. Presumably, he thought that his fortunes would have been better if Edward V had become king. Since he lost his head for his treason, I'd say that he was wrong.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

No, the Annes who died were:-
1) Edward & Richard's sister, Anne Duchess of Exeter (Jan 1476)
2) Her daughter by the Duke of Exeter (c. 1474).

The daughter by St Leger (also called Anne) survived, and it is her line that has been taken for the mtDNA match with the Greyfriars warrior.

Yes, indeed, there was an alternative candidate in Richard's reign - John Lord Neville. Perhaps had Richard reigned longer and got his finances in order Lord Neville would have got something out of it.

When you say the "seditious" part was applied after the duchess was dead - if you mean she was dead when it was claimed, then yes, as was Thomas St Leger. It may also refer to the marriage itself - Anne's first husband was still living when she married St Leger (he died in fishy circumstances shortly before Anne herself), and she had got an annulment from the Pope in order to marry St Leger. Perhaps Richard thought there was something fishy about the annulment; I'd have to look into it.

Marie


--- In , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Sheesh! St Leger's daughter with Anne died too? Were there any Neville's left to have inherited the lands?
> So the "seditious" part was applied after the duchess was dead?
> Is it due to St Leger's rebellion so that his daughter cannot inherit the lands?
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > There was also the question of the Exeter estates. Richard's sister Anne did not long survive her marriage to St Leger (and nor did her imprisoned first husband). She died giving birth to a baby daughter. As a result of the death of Anne's daughter by the Duke of Exeter, and of acts of parliament passed by Edward IV which had got round the effects on his sister of her husband's attainder by vesting the duchy in her and her legitimate issue, that baby became the duchess of Exeter although she hadn't a scrap of Holland blood.
> > During the child's minority the Exeter estates were parcelled out between St Leger and the Marquess Dorset, who had been granted the child's wardship.
> > The duchy could otherwise have been claimed by the offspring of the late duke's sister, Lord Neville.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > RIII had him executed in November 1483.
> > >
> > > Carol adds:
> > >
> > > With good reason. He participated in the so-called Buckingham's Rebellion. But Richard had evidently stripped St. Leger of the offices he'd held under Edward. I don't know the details or the reasons.
> > >
> > > I've heard that St. Leger was Anne's lover while she was still married to the Lancastrian Duke of Exeter, arranged by her parents, or at least her father, when she was a child of seven. Edward, who hated Exeter, seems to have been complaisant about his sister's liaison (as Richard, I think, would not have been), but whether Anne had Edward's consent to marry a commoner or married him in secret, I don't know. I doubt that Richard approved of the marriage, but what he thought of St/ Leger personally is impossible to say.
> > >
> > > St. Leger seems to have been loyal to Edward but not to Richard. Presumably, he thought that his fortunes would have been better if Edward V had become king. Since he lost his head for his treason, I'd say that he was wrong.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>

Neville also had a good claim to the Duchy of Lancaster estates through his Holland ancestors (one of whom married a full sister of Henry IV), and in fact had a better claim to the crown than the Beaufort-Tudor line.

Although St Leger had no hereditary claim on the Exeter estates, he may have hoped to hold them through his daughter, as they had been granted by Edward to Anne and the heirs of her body. 

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=66273&strquery=thorpe%20waterville#s2





________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 12 November 2012, 21:14
Subject: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and Richard


 

No, the Annes who died were:-
1) Edward & Richard's sister, Anne Duchess of Exeter (Jan 1476)
2) Her daughter by the Duke of Exeter (c. 1474).

The daughter by St Leger (also called Anne) survived, and it is her line that has been taken for the mtDNA match with the Greyfriars warrior.

Yes, indeed, there was an alternative candidate in Richard's reign - John Lord Neville. Perhaps had Richard reigned longer and got his finances in order Lord Neville would have got something out of it.

When you say the "seditious" part was applied after the duchess was dead - if you mean she was dead when it was claimed, then yes, as was Thomas St Leger. It may also refer to the marriage itself - Anne's first husband was still living when she married St Leger (he died in fishy circumstances shortly before Anne herself), and she had got an annulment from the Pope in order to marry St Leger. Perhaps Richard thought there was something fishy about the annulment; I'd have to look into it.

Marie

--- In , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Sheesh! St Leger's daughter with Anne died too? Were there any Neville's left to have inherited the lands?
> So the "seditious" part was applied after the duchess was dead?
> Is it due to St Leger's rebellion so that his daughter cannot inherit the lands?
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > There was also the question of the Exeter estates. Richard's sister Anne did not long survive her marriage to St Leger (and nor did her imprisoned first husband). She died giving birth to a baby daughter. As a result of the death of Anne's daughter by the Duke of Exeter, and of acts of parliament passed by Edward IV which had got round the effects on his sister of her husband's attainder by vesting the duchy in her and her legitimate issue, that baby became the duchess of Exeter although she hadn't a scrap of Holland blood.
> > During the child's minority the Exeter estates were parcelled out between St Leger and the Marquess Dorset, who had been granted the child's wardship.
> > The duchy could otherwise have been claimed by the offspring of the late duke's sister, Lord Neville.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > RIII had him executed in November 1483.
> > >
> > > Carol adds:
> > >
> > > With good reason. He participated in the so-called Buckingham's Rebellion. But Richard had evidently stripped St. Leger of the offices he'd held under Edward. I don't know the details or the reasons.
> > >
> > > I've heard that St. Leger was Anne's lover while she was still married to the Lancastrian Duke of Exeter, arranged by her parents, or at least her father, when she was a child of seven. Edward, who hated Exeter, seems to have been complaisant about his sister's liaison (as Richard, I think, would not have been), but whether Anne had Edward's consent to marry a commoner or married him in secret, I don't know. I doubt that Richard approved of the marriage, but what he thought of St/ Leger personally is impossible to say.
> > >
> > > St. Leger seems to have been loyal to Edward but not to Richard. Presumably, he thought that his fortunes would have been better if Edward V had become king. Since he lost his head for his treason, I'd say that he was wrong.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>

Another example of Edward's less than robust respect for the whole concept
of 'inheritance'. Though he now owes Anne St Leger his very identity, and
though I have some sneaking sympathy for Thomas St Leger, Richard was right
to undo this particular transaction.

Karen

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:44:59 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and
Richard






There was also the question of the Exeter estates. Richard's sister Anne did
not long survive her marriage to St Leger (and nor did her imprisoned first
husband). She died giving birth to a baby daughter. As a result of the death
of Anne's daughter by the Duke of Exeter, and of acts of parliament passed
by Edward IV which had got round the effects on his sister of her husband's
attainder by vesting the duchy in her and her legitimate issue, that baby
became the duchess of Exeter although she hadn't a scrap of Holland blood.
During the child's minority the Exeter estates were parcelled out between St
Leger and the Marquess Dorset, who had been granted the child's wardship.
The duchy could otherwise have been claimed by the offspring of the late
duke's sister, Lord Neville.
Marie

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "justcarol67"
<justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> wrote:
> >
> > RIII had him executed in November 1483.
>
> Carol adds:
>
> With good reason. He participated in the so-called Buckingham's Rebellion. But
Richard had evidently stripped St. Leger of the offices he'd held under Edward.
I don't know the details or the reasons.
>
> I've heard that St. Leger was Anne's lover while she was still married to the
Lancastrian Duke of Exeter, arranged by her parents, or at least her father,
when she was a child of seven. Edward, who hated Exeter, seems to have been
complaisant about his sister's liaison (as Richard, I think, would not have
been), but whether Anne had Edward's consent to marry a commoner or married him
in secret, I don't know. I doubt that Richard approved of the marriage, but what
he thought of St/ Leger personally is impossible to say.
>
> St. Leger seems to have been loyal to Edward but not to Richard. Presumably,
he thought that his fortunes would have been better if Edward V had become king.
Since he lost his head for his treason, I'd say that he was wrong.
>
> Carol
>
> Carol
>

--- In , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Sheesh! St Leger's daughter with Anne died too? Were there any Neville's left to have inherited the lands?
> So the "seditious" part was applied after the duchess was dead?
> Is it due to St Leger's rebellion so that his daughter cannot inherit the lands?

Carol responds:

Anne's daughter by St. leger married and had at least one daughter and so on down the line to the present day. They're the female line through which Richard's mtDNA is being traced. I believe that Anne St. Leger died at about 37, possibly in childbirth. Her mother almost certainly died from the same cause since she died soon after her daughter's birth.

St. Leger's treason against Richard was committed nearly five years after his wife's death. Anne died in January 1476, some four and a half years before Richard's coronation (in which her sister, Elizabeth Duchess of Suffolk, participated).

I'll let someone else talk about the lands. My understanding is that *she* inherited them despite having no relationship to her mother's first husband, Henry Holland, Earl of Exeter. I suspect that Richard wanted to return the lands to the rightful heirs (the Neville relatives of the Earl of Exeter), an idea that would not please Thomas St. Leger.

Carol

Carol earlier:

<snip> I'll let someone else talk about the lands. My understanding is that *she* inherited them despite having no relationship to her mother's first husband, Henry Holland, Earl of Exeter. I suspect that Richard wanted to return the lands to the rightful heirs (the Neville relatives of the Earl of Exeter), an idea that would not please Thomas St. Leger.
>
Carol again:

Make that Duke of Exeter, sorry. I don't suppose that Richard Duke of York and Cecily Neville would have given their eldest daughter as a child bride to a mere earl.

Carol

Marie wrote:

//snip//
"Yes, indeed, there was an alternative candidate in Richard's reign - John
Lord Neville. Perhaps had Richard reigned longer and got his finances in
order Lord Neville would have got something out of it."

This was the person who "owned" Middleham, correct?

"When you say the "seditious" part was applied after the duchess was dead -
if you mean she was dead when it was claimed, then yes, as was Thomas St
Leger. It may also refer to the marriage itself - Anne's first husband was
still living when she married St Leger (he died in fishy circumstances
shortly before Anne herself), and she had got an annulment from the Pope in
order to marry St Leger. Perhaps Richard thought there was something fishy
about the annulment; I'd have to look into it."

Perhaps "seditious" refers to Anne not getting permission from Edward IV
BEFORE her marriage to St Leger? Edward's seeming reluctnce in raising any
commotion inside his extended family might explain why nothing was done
while he was alive.
Then again, I'm not noted for my insight into human frailties...
Doug

Marie, yes thats what i meant. maybe returning the lands to the rightful owner was all Richard wanted to do......

Doug, makes sense.
We barely understand out own frailties let alone other:).

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Nov 12, 2012, at 10:27 AM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:

>
> Marie wrote:
>
> //snip//
> "Yes, indeed, there was an alternative candidate in Richard's reign - John
> Lord Neville. Perhaps had Richard reigned longer and got his finances in
> order Lord Neville would have got something out of it."
>
> This was the person who "owned" Middleham, correct?
>
> "When you say the "seditious" part was applied after the duchess was dead -
> if you mean she was dead when it was claimed, then yes, as was Thomas St
> Leger. It may also refer to the marriage itself - Anne's first husband was
> still living when she married St Leger (he died in fishy circumstances
> shortly before Anne herself), and she had got an annulment from the Pope in
> order to marry St Leger. Perhaps Richard thought there was something fishy
> about the annulment; I'd have to look into it."
>
> Perhaps "seditious" refers to Anne not getting permission from Edward IV
> BEFORE her marriage to St Leger? Edward's seeming reluctnce in raising any
> commotion inside his extended family might explain why nothing was done
> while he was alive.
> Then again, I'm not noted for my insight into human frailties...
> Doug
>
>

Hi, Douglas -



Don'cha just love medieval property law? <smiley>



If the John Lord Neville is the one who was going to be entitled to
Middleham upon the death of the Countess of Warwick, then, no, you can't say
he was the "owner" of Middleham at the time that Anne and Richard were
entitled to possession of it during the Countess's lifetime. He would be
either the "remainderman" or he would have had "the possibility of
reverter," depending on how the entitlement was originally devised.



Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to go back through the old thread
to determine if he's the guy (I thought it was Lord Latimer - are they one
and the same?), as I have that talk to prepare for Theology tomorrow.
Anyway, presumably once the Countess died, (Latimer) would have become the
owner and would have been entitled to possession of the property, the
profits, and so on.



Forgive me, if I've got this totally wrong! I'm trying to help, honest!



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Douglas Eugene
Stamate
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 11:28 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marriage and
Richard



Marie wrote:

//snip//
"Yes, indeed, there was an alternative candidate in Richard's reign - John
Lord Neville. Perhaps had Richard reigned longer and got his finances in
order Lord Neville would have got something out of it."

This was the person who "owned" Middleham, correct?

"When you say the "seditious" part was applied after the duchess was dead -
if you mean she was dead when it was claimed, then yes, as was Thomas St
Leger. It may also refer to the marriage itself - Anne's first husband was
still living when she married St Leger (he died in fishy circumstances
shortly before Anne herself), and she had got an annulment from the Pope in
order to marry St Leger. Perhaps Richard thought there was something fishy
about the annulment; I'd have to look into it."

Perhaps "seditious" refers to Anne not getting permission from Edward IV
BEFORE her marriage to St Leger? Edward's seeming reluctnce in raising any
commotion inside his extended family might explain why nothing was done
while he was alive.
Then again, I'm not noted for my insight into human frailties...
Doug

Try this link for the Exeter conundrum:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dV4NDnis7yQC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=edward+iv+exeter+estates&source=bl&ots=_ulqDmFB8_&sig=8q4WxMftjSOxPO83SKd9nBssA50&hl=en&sa=X&ei=24SiUP_LJLK00QXpuoC4Cw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false


This is not the Neville who was rightful heir to Middleham, but a cousin. 

________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 12 November 2012, 15:27
Subject: Re: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and Richard


 

Marie wrote:

//snip//
"Yes, indeed, there was an alternative candidate in Richard's reign - John
Lord Neville. Perhaps had Richard reigned longer and got his finances in
order Lord Neville would have got something out of it."

This was the person who "owned" Middleham, correct?

"When you say the "seditious" part was applied after the duchess was dead -
if you mean she was dead when it was claimed, then yes, as was Thomas St
Leger. It may also refer to the marriage itself - Anne's first husband was
still living when she married St Leger (he died in fishy circumstances
shortly before Anne herself), and she had got an annulment from the Pope in
order to marry St Leger. Perhaps Richard thought there was something fishy
about the annulment; I'd have to look into it."

Perhaps "seditious" refers to Anne not getting permission from Edward IV
BEFORE her marriage to St Leger? Edward's seeming reluctnce in raising any
commotion inside his extended family might explain why nothing was done
while he was alive.
Then again, I'm not noted for my insight into human frailties...
Doug

Susan Higginbotham on Anne of Exeter:

http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/subpages/anneofexeter.html



Francis Lovel, who was heir of the senior line of Hollands, certainly had some of the estates from Richard. Perhaps Richard intended to restore the bulk of the lands to young Anne when she married a man he considered appropriate (i.e. loyal).



________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 13 November 2012, 17:40
Subject: Re: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and Richard


 
Try this link for the Exeter conundrum:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dV4NDnis7yQC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=edward+iv+exeter+estates&source=bl&ots=_ulqDmFB8_&sig=8q4WxMftjSOxPO83SKd9nBssA50&hl=en&sa=X&ei=24SiUP_LJLK00QXpuoC4Cw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

This is not the Neville who was rightful heir to Middleham, but a cousin. 

________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 12 November 2012, 15:27
Subject: Re: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and Richard


 

Marie wrote:

//snip//
"Yes, indeed, there was an alternative candidate in Richard's reign - John
Lord Neville. Perhaps had Richard reigned longer and got his finances in
order Lord Neville would have got something out of it."

This was the person who "owned" Middleham, correct?

"When you say the "seditious" part was applied after the duchess was dead -
if you mean she was dead when it was claimed, then yes, as was Thomas St
Leger. It may also refer to the marriage itself - Anne's first husband was
still living when she married St Leger (he died in fishy circumstances
shortly before Anne herself), and she had got an annulment from the Pope in
order to marry St Leger. Perhaps Richard thought there was something fishy
about the annulment; I'd have to look into it."

Perhaps "seditious" refers to Anne not getting permission from Edward IV
BEFORE her marriage to St Leger? Edward's seeming reluctnce in raising any
commotion inside his extended family might explain why nothing was done
while he was alive.
Then again, I'm not noted for my insight into human frailties...
Doug

The "Exeter Lands" dispute evidently isn't over yet:


http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/27191






________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 13 November 2012, 18:00
Subject: Re: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and Richard


 
Susan Higginbotham on Anne of Exeter:

http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/subpages/anneofexeter.html

Francis Lovel, who was heir of the senior line of Hollands, certainly had some of the estates from Richard. Perhaps Richard intended to restore the bulk of the lands to young Anne when she married a man he considered appropriate (i.e. loyal).

________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 13 November 2012, 17:40
Subject: Re: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and Richard


 
Try this link for the Exeter conundrum:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dV4NDnis7yQC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=edward+iv+exeter+estates&source=bl&ots=_ulqDmFB8_&sig=8q4WxMftjSOxPO83SKd9nBssA50&hl=en&sa=X&ei=24SiUP_LJLK00QXpuoC4Cw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

This is not the Neville who was rightful heir to Middleham, but a cousin. 

________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 12 November 2012, 15:27
Subject: Re: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and Richard

 

Marie wrote:

//snip//
"Yes, indeed, there was an alternative candidate in Richard's reign - John
Lord Neville. Perhaps had Richard reigned longer and got his finances in
order Lord Neville would have got something out of it."

This was the person who "owned" Middleham, correct?

"When you say the "seditious" part was applied after the duchess was dead -
if you mean she was dead when it was claimed, then yes, as was Thomas St
Leger. It may also refer to the marriage itself - Anne's first husband was
still living when she married St Leger (he died in fishy circumstances
shortly before Anne herself), and she had got an annulment from the Pope in
order to marry St Leger. Perhaps Richard thought there was something fishy
about the annulment; I'd have to look into it."

Perhaps "seditious" refers to Anne not getting permission from Edward IV
BEFORE her marriage to St Leger? Edward's seeming reluctnce in raising any
commotion inside his extended family might explain why nothing was done
while he was alive.
Then again, I'm not noted for my insight into human frailties...
Doug

Ah, yes, hs name was Ralph. My family tree software hasn't been working since I got my new computer. Good Lancastrian title to the throne as well.
Marie

--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Try this link for the Exeter conundrum:
>
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dV4NDnis7yQC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=edward+iv+exeter+estates&source=bl&ots=_ulqDmFB8_&sig=8q4WxMftjSOxPO83SKd9nBssA50&hl=en&sa=X&ei=24SiUP_LJLK00QXpuoC4Cw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
>
>
> This is not the Neville who was rightful heir to Middleham, but a cousin. 
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 12 November 2012, 15:27
> Subject: Re: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and Richard
>
>
>  
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> //snip//
> "Yes, indeed, there was an alternative candidate in Richard's reign - John
> Lord Neville. Perhaps had Richard reigned longer and got his finances in
> order Lord Neville would have got something out of it."
>
> This was the person who "owned" Middleham, correct?
>
> "When you say the "seditious" part was applied after the duchess was dead -
> if you mean she was dead when it was claimed, then yes, as was Thomas St
> Leger. It may also refer to the marriage itself - Anne's first husband was
> still living when she married St Leger (he died in fishy circumstances
> shortly before Anne herself), and she had got an annulment from the Pope in
> order to marry St Leger. Perhaps Richard thought there was something fishy
> about the annulment; I'd have to look into it."
>
> Perhaps "seditious" refers to Anne not getting permission from Edward IV
> BEFORE her marriage to St Leger? Edward's seeming reluctnce in raising any
> commotion inside his extended family might explain why nothing was done
> while he was alive.
> Then again, I'm not noted for my insight into human frailties...
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>

She married ?George Manners, of a Northumbrian family I think. Not suitably elevated. I think it's possible the marriage was arranged during Richard's reign but I don't actually know.
In hs letter to Lord Neville begging for aid in June 1483 Richard wrote "I hope now so to remember you as shall be the making of you and yours" or words to that effect.
Marue




--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Susan Higginbotham on Anne of Exeter:
>
> http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/subpages/anneofexeter.html
>
>
>
> Francis Lovel, who was heir of the senior line of Hollands, certainly had some of the estates from Richard. Perhaps Richard intended to restore the bulk of the lands to young Anne when she married a man he considered appropriate (i.e. loyal).
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 November 2012, 17:40
> Subject: Re: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and Richard
>
>
>  
> Try this link for the Exeter conundrum:
>
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dV4NDnis7yQC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=edward+iv+exeter+estates&source=bl&ots=_ulqDmFB8_&sig=8q4WxMftjSOxPO83SKd9nBssA50&hl=en&sa=X&ei=24SiUP_LJLK00QXpuoC4Cw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
>
> This is not the Neville who was rightful heir to Middleham, but a cousin. 
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 12 November 2012, 15:27
> Subject: Re: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and Richard
>
>
>  
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> //snip//
> "Yes, indeed, there was an alternative candidate in Richard's reign - John
> Lord Neville. Perhaps had Richard reigned longer and got his finances in
> order Lord Neville would have got something out of it."
>
> This was the person who "owned" Middleham, correct?
>
> "When you say the "seditious" part was applied after the duchess was dead -
> if you mean she was dead when it was claimed, then yes, as was Thomas St
> Leger. It may also refer to the marriage itself - Anne's first husband was
> still living when she married St Leger (he died in fishy circumstances
> shortly before Anne herself), and she had got an annulment from the Pope in
> order to marry St Leger. Perhaps Richard thought there was something fishy
> about the annulment; I'd have to look into it."
>
> Perhaps "seditious" refers to Anne not getting permission from Edward IV
> BEFORE her marriage to St Leger? Edward's seeming reluctnce in raising any
> commotion inside his extended family might explain why nothing was done
> while he was alive.
> Then again, I'm not noted for my insight into human frailties...
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

SHUP

lol.

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Douglas -
>
>
>
> Don'cha just love medieval property law? <smiley>
>
>
>
> If the John Lord Neville is the one who was going to be entitled to
> Middleham upon the death of the Countess of Warwick, then, no, you can't say
> he was the "owner" of Middleham at the time that Anne and Richard were
> entitled to possession of it during the Countess's lifetime. He would be
> either the "remainderman" or he would have had "the possibility of
> reverter," depending on how the entitlement was originally devised.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to go back through the old thread
> to determine if he's the guy (I thought it was Lord Latimer - are they one
> and the same?), as I have that talk to prepare for Theology tomorrow.
> Anyway, presumably once the Countess died, (Latimer) would have become the
> owner and would have been entitled to possession of the property, the
> profits, and so on.
>
>
>
> Forgive me, if I've got this totally wrong! I'm trying to help, honest!
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Douglas Eugene
> Stamate
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 11:28 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marriage and
> Richard
>
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> //snip//
> "Yes, indeed, there was an alternative candidate in Richard's reign - John
> Lord Neville. Perhaps had Richard reigned longer and got his finances in
> order Lord Neville would have got something out of it."
>
> This was the person who "owned" Middleham, correct?
>
> "When you say the "seditious" part was applied after the duchess was dead -
> if you mean she was dead when it was claimed, then yes, as was Thomas St
> Leger. It may also refer to the marriage itself - Anne's first husband was
> still living when she married St Leger (he died in fishy circumstances
> shortly before Anne herself), and she had got an annulment from the Pope in
> order to marry St Leger. Perhaps Richard thought there was something fishy
> about the annulment; I'd have to look into it."
>
> Perhaps "seditious" refers to Anne not getting permission from Edward IV
> BEFORE her marriage to St Leger? Edward's seeming reluctnce in raising any
> commotion inside his extended family might explain why nothing was done
> while he was alive.
> Then again, I'm not noted for my insight into human frailties...
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Johanne Tournier wrote:

//snip//
"Don'cha just love medieval property law? <smiley>"

I don't think I'm having trouble so much with the laws themselves as with
how those laws were used. Modern law can seem, and often is, complicated
because of an unfamiliarity with today's legal terminology; we know what we
want to accomplish, but aren't certain how it's phrased in "legalese". With
medieval law, we ALSO have to try and discern WHY something was done as well
as HOW!
Yeesh.

"If the John Lord Neville is the one who was going to be entitled to
Middleham upon the death of the Countess of Warwick, then, no, you can't say
he was the "owner" of Middleham at the time that Anne and Richard were
entitled to possession of it during the Countess's lifetime. He would be
either the "remainderman" or he would have had "the possibility of
reverter," depending on how the entitlement was originally devised."

We can, however, consider it to have been "his" in the sense that, while
Richard and Anne had the use of that property and received any incomes from
it during their lifetimes, they couldn't dispose of it? Which to most
(including me), would signifiy ownership.
That latter, by the way, is the thing that first got me thinking about
modern-day "trusts"; there's also a beneficiary and the beneficiary doesn't
have any rights regarding the disposal of the "trust" itself. I hope that's
understandible?

"Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to go back through the old
thread to determine if he's the guy (I thought it was Lord Latimer - are
they one and the same?), as I have that talk to prepare for Theology
tomorrow. Anyway, presumably once the Countess died, (Latimer) would have
become the owner and would have been entitled to possession of the property,
the profits, and so on."

If I understand it properly, (talk about thin ice!), it would be: "John
Neville, Lord Latimer" and, yes, he would get the property back after the
death of the Countess of Warwick. Or, in this case, if Anne or Richard were
alive when the Countess died, Lord Latimer would have to wait until they
died.

Good luck with the talk.
Doug

Lord Neville and Lord Latimer were two different people. Lord Neville became Earl of Westmorland. Lord Neville belonged to the family of Ralph Neville 1st Earl of Westmorland's first marriage, whereas Lord Latimer was descended from the second marriage (indeed, from the Earl of Salisbury).
Hope that's a little clearer than mud.
Marie


--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> //snip//
> "Don'cha just love medieval property law? <smiley>"
>
> I don't think I'm having trouble so much with the laws themselves as with
> how those laws were used. Modern law can seem, and often is, complicated
> because of an unfamiliarity with today's legal terminology; we know what we
> want to accomplish, but aren't certain how it's phrased in "legalese". With
> medieval law, we ALSO have to try and discern WHY something was done as well
> as HOW!
> Yeesh.
>
> "If the John Lord Neville is the one who was going to be entitled to
> Middleham upon the death of the Countess of Warwick, then, no, you can't say
> he was the "owner" of Middleham at the time that Anne and Richard were
> entitled to possession of it during the Countess's lifetime. He would be
> either the "remainderman" or he would have had "the possibility of
> reverter," depending on how the entitlement was originally devised."
>
> We can, however, consider it to have been "his" in the sense that, while
> Richard and Anne had the use of that property and received any incomes from
> it during their lifetimes, they couldn't dispose of it? Which to most
> (including me), would signifiy ownership.
> That latter, by the way, is the thing that first got me thinking about
> modern-day "trusts"; there's also a beneficiary and the beneficiary doesn't
> have any rights regarding the disposal of the "trust" itself. I hope that's
> understandible?
>
> "Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to go back through the old
> thread to determine if he's the guy (I thought it was Lord Latimer - are
> they one and the same?), as I have that talk to prepare for Theology
> tomorrow. Anyway, presumably once the Countess died, (Latimer) would have
> become the owner and would have been entitled to possession of the property,
> the profits, and so on."
>
> If I understand it properly, (talk about thin ice!), it would be: "John
> Neville, Lord Latimer" and, yes, he would get the property back after the
> death of the Countess of Warwick. Or, in this case, if Anne or Richard were
> alive when the Countess died, Lord Latimer would have to wait until they
> died.
>
> Good luck with the talk.
> Doug
>

Dear Doug -





From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Douglas Eugene
Stamate
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 11:14 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marriage and
Richard




Johanne Tournier wrote:

//snip//
"Don'cha just love medieval property law? <smiley>"



Doug -
I don't think I'm having trouble so much with the laws themselves as with
how those laws were used. Modern law can seem, and often is, complicated
because of an unfamiliarity with today's legal terminology; we know what we
want to accomplish, but aren't certain how it's phrased in "legalese". With
medieval law, we ALSO have to try and discern WHY something was done as well

as HOW!
Yeesh.



[JLT now] - I know how you feel. You know what they say: "Misery loves
company." <grin>



JLT before -
"If the John Lord Neville is the one who was going to be entitled to
Middleham upon the death of the Countess of Warwick, then, no, you can't say

he was the "owner" of Middleham at the time that Anne and Richard were
entitled to possession of it during the Countess's lifetime. He would be
either the "remainderman" or he would have had "the possibility of
reverter," depending on how the entitlement was originally devised."



[JLT] I probably should have said "interest" rather than "entitlement," as
in "he had an interest in the estate of Middleham." And when I wrote
"devised" I was assuming that he got his interest in Middleham by will. So -
a devise is a transfer specifically of real property (land and the things
affixed to land) which is done by a testator or testatrix (person who makes
a will).



Doug -
We can, however, consider it to have been "his" in the sense that, while
Richard and Anne had the use of that property and received any incomes from
it during their lifetimes, they couldn't dispose of it? Which to most
(including me), would signifiy ownership. That latter, by the way, is the
thing that first got me thinking about modern-day "trusts"; there's also a
beneficiary and the beneficiary doesn't
have any rights regarding the disposal of the "trust" itself. I hope that's
understandable?



[JLT now] -

In Alan Sinclair's "Intro to Real Property" course we were taught that
"ownership" really consists of a "bundle" of rights. As I wrote before, at
the time of the Norman Conquest, all the land in England was held to belong
to the King. Then he granted certain bundles of rights to his subjects. No
one had complete ownership. The most a person could get was "ownership in
fee simple," and the owner of the "fee" wass said to be "seised" of a
property in "fee simple." "Seisin" refers to present possession of the
property. Then it was possible for a male, for instance, who held property
in fee simple to divide it up - he could entail it so that it would pass
only to male heirs of his body, for example. But if he did that, then
something would happen if there were no male heirs of his body - it would
either pass to a "remainderman" if he had named a remainderman in his will,
or there might be a "reversion" to a previous owner; that would be what
would happen if there was a "possibility of reverter." In neither case would
the remainderman or the person with possibility of reverter be called the
"owner" of the property. The reason is that when you say "owner" what you
are saying is "that's the guy with all the rights to the property," and that
wouldn't have been true for a person in either case. In Lord Latimer's case,
while the Countess of Warwick was alive, he didn't have any right of
"present enjoyment" of the property. Under the law today, and maybe in the
15th. c. as well, he also didn't have any obligations. The person with, say,
a "life interest" in the property, which would have been either the Countess
or Anne (and Richard?) would have all the rights of possession of the
property and (today at least) all the obligations - paying the taxes,
maintaining the property, and keeping it insured against loss or damage.
(There is a question of whether he had "a present vested interest" - that's
something I've got to read up on to say for sure. I *think* off the top of
my head, that being remainderman is a present vested interest, because it
can't be taken from him, whereas the "possibility of reverter" is not a
present vested interest, because it is contingent on something happening
(like someone not having any male heirs of his body in a case where the
estate is entailed). And which situation you've got in the case of Lord
Latimer depends on the wording of the document that created his interest in
the property. Which I haven't yet seen yet, so I am really talking about
general principles which seem likely to apply (more or less) to Lord
Latimer's situation.



[JLT before] -
"Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to go back through the old
thread to determine if he's the guy (I thought it was Lord Latimer - are
they one and the same?), as I have that talk to prepare for Theology
tomorrow. Anyway, presumably once the Countess died, (Latimer) would have
become the owner and would have been entitled to possession of the property,
the profits, and so on."



Doug -
If I understand it properly, (talk about thin ice!), it would be: "John
Neville, Lord Latimer" and, yes, he would get the property back after the
death of the Countess of Warwick. Or, in this case, if Anne or Richard were
alive when the Countess died, Lord Latimer would have to wait until they
died.



[JLT now] OK, was Lord Latimer the person who granted the property to the
Countess? If not, then he wouldn't be getting it "back" when she died; he
would be getting it (for the first time) when she died. That's what it means
to be a remainderman.



Doug -
Good luck with the talk.
Doug



[JLT now]

I didn't give it! I got sick, some sort of bug or the flu. So I made my
excuses and now I'll be giving it next Wednesday. Thanks for your good
wishes, though. We shall see . . .



Have I been satisfactorily fuzzifying the muddification, Doug? I hope that I
have been stating the law correctly. It's always risky when one writes this
technical stuff from memory!



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne

Marie, can you confirm this lord Latimer's descent from Salisbury? The only
surviving Nevill grandson Salisbury had was John's son, George, duke of
Bedford. I'd have thought this Latimer was descended from Salisbury's
brother George, lord Latimer.

Karen

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:40:59 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and
Richard






Lord Neville and Lord Latimer were two different people. Lord Neville became
Earl of Westmorland. Lord Neville belonged to the family of Ralph Neville
1st Earl of Westmorland's first marriage, whereas Lord Latimer was descended
from the second marriage (indeed, from the Earl of Salisbury).
Hope that's a little clearer than mud.
Marie

Karen, you're right. As I said, I dont have access to my family trees, and my brain's a bit foggy some of the time.
Marie

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, can you confirm this lord Latimer's descent from Salisbury? The only
> surviving Nevill grandson Salisbury had was John's son, George, duke of
> Bedford. I'd have thought this Latimer was descended from Salisbury's
> brother George, lord Latimer.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:40:59 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lord Neville and Lord Latimer were two different people. Lord Neville became
> Earl of Westmorland. Lord Neville belonged to the family of Ralph Neville
> 1st Earl of Westmorland's first marriage, whereas Lord Latimer was descended
> from the second marriage (indeed, from the Earl of Salisbury).
> Hope that's a little clearer than mud.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Richard Neville, Lord Latimer, was the grandson of Salisbury's insane brother George, Lord Latimer. His father Henry had been killed at Edgecote, while his mother was a Bourchier, so through Isabella of York he was a cousin of the York family.

He became heir male of the Ralph Neville-Joan Beaufort marriage (and so heir of Middleham) on the death of George, former Duke of Bedford in April 1483. Since he had not been guilty of treason he would have been legally able to enter Middleham as Lord at the age of 21 in 1489. 

His title to the barony of Latimer was disputed by the Willoughbys, who were descended from the last Lord Latimer of the original creation. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Latimer



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 15 November 2012, 18:08
Subject: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and Richard


 

Karen, you're right. As I said, I dont have access to my family trees, and my brain's a bit foggy some of the time.
Marie

--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, can you confirm this lord Latimer's descent from Salisbury? The only
> surviving Nevill grandson Salisbury had was John's son, George, duke of
> Bedford. I'd have thought this Latimer was descended from Salisbury's
> brother George, lord Latimer.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:40:59 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lord Neville and Lord Latimer were two different people. Lord Neville became
> Earl of Westmorland. Lord Neville belonged to the family of Ralph Neville
> 1st Earl of Westmorland's first marriage, whereas Lord Latimer was descended
> from the second marriage (indeed, from the Earl of Salisbury).
> Hope that's a little clearer than mud.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The Nevills can be a little confusing if you're not immersed in them 24
hours a day. I can never get Latimer/Berners straight in my head, which was
George and which Edward. I'm hoping it'll stick soon!

Karen

Karen

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:08:09 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and
Richard







Karen, you're right. As I said, I dont have access to my family trees, and
my brain's a bit foggy some of the time.
Marie

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, can you confirm this lord Latimer's descent from Salisbury? The only
> surviving Nevill grandson Salisbury had was John's son, George, duke of
> Bedford. I'd have thought this Latimer was descended from Salisbury's
> brother George, lord Latimer.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]
<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:40:59 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lord Neville and Lord Latimer were two different people. Lord Neville became
> Earl of Westmorland. Lord Neville belonged to the family of Ralph Neville
> 1st Earl of Westmorland's first marriage, whereas Lord Latimer was descended
> from the second marriage (indeed, from the Earl of Salisbury).
> Hope that's a little clearer than mud.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi, David 

Thanks very much for posting this. Marie, you, too, but it really helps for me to have all the names and the (fairly complete) relationships. I am going to save this.



I did mention I wasn't sure about the name, except I recalled Latimer. But it's tough to remember who's who when one has read at most a passing mention about someone like Lord Latimer.



I don't suppose you have a copy of the will which devised the property to the Countess and then to Lord Latimer, if that's how it went. If it didn't specifically mention them, but devised property to heirs male or something like that, it may be necessary to not only have a copy of the will but a family tree showing the relationships to be able to determine who was entitled to what  with notes as to who predeceased whom and who was lost their property due to attainder, and so on. I have a feeling this could get complicated! <smile>



Bottom line  what I wrote earlier should still apply in the situation, because I was writing about whoever the male was who was entitled to the property on the death of the Countess, regardless of what his name was.



Still clear as mud, I hope! <smile>



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of david rayner
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:52 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and Richard





Richard Neville, Lord Latimer, was the grandson of Salisbury's insane brother George, Lord Latimer. His father Henry had been killed at Edgecote, while his mother was a Bourchier, so through Isabella of York he was a cousin of the York family.

He became heir male of the Ralph Neville-Joan Beaufort marriage (and so heir of Middleham) on the death of George, former Duke of Bedford in April 1483. Since he had not been guilty of treason he would have been legally able to enter Middleham as Lord at the age of 21 in 1489.

His title to the barony of Latimer was disputed by the Willoughbys, who were descended from the last Lord Latimer of the original creation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Latimer

________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected] <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 15 November 2012, 18:08
Subject: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and Richard




Karen, you're right. As I said, I dont have access to my family trees, and my brain's a bit foggy some of the time.
Marie

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, can you confirm this lord Latimer's descent from Salisbury? The only
> surviving Nevill grandson Salisbury had was John's son, George, duke of
> Bedford. I'd have thought this Latimer was descended from Salisbury's
> brother George, lord Latimer.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected] <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Reply-To: < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:40:59 -0000
> To: < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lord Neville and Lord Latimer were two different people. Lord Neville became
> Earl of Westmorland. Lord Neville belonged to the family of Ralph Neville
> 1st Earl of Westmorland's first marriage, whereas Lord Latimer was descended
> from the second marriage (indeed, from the Earl of Salisbury).
> Hope that's a little clearer than mud.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Good lord! Not Berners but Bergavenny.

Karen

From: Karen Clark <ragged_staff@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:18:31 +1100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and
Richard






The Nevills can be a little confusing if you're not immersed in them 24
hours a day. I can never get Latimer/Berners straight in my head, which was
George and which Edward. I'm hoping it'll stick soon!

Karen

Karen

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]
<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:08:09 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and
Richard

Karen, you're right. As I said, I dont have access to my family trees, and
my brain's a bit foggy some of the time.
Marie

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, can you confirm this lord Latimer's descent from Salisbury? The only
> surviving Nevill grandson Salisbury had was John's son, George, duke of
> Bedford. I'd have thought this Latimer was descended from Salisbury's
> brother George, lord Latimer.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]
<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:40:59 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lord Neville and Lord Latimer were two different people. Lord Neville became
> Earl of Westmorland. Lord Neville belonged to the family of Ralph Neville
> 1st Earl of Westmorland's first marriage, whereas Lord Latimer was descended
> from the second marriage (indeed, from the Earl of Salisbury).
> Hope that's a little clearer than mud.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Marie wrote:

"Lord Neville and Lord Latimer were two different people. Lord Neville
became Earl of Westmorland. Lord Neville belonged to the family of Ralph
Neville 1st Earl of Westmorland's first marriage, whereas Lord Latimer was
descended from the second marriage (indeed, from the Earl of Salisbury).
Hope that's a little clearer than mud."

Just about! They WERE both Nevilles, though?
Didn't I see this once on television, back when I watched soaps?
Doug

Johanne Tournier wrote:

//snip//
"Have I been satisfactorily fuzzifying the muddification, Doug? I hope that
I have been stating the law correctly. It's always risky when one writes
this technical stuff from memory!"

I've kept the whole post to re-read later, but I'd like to see if I got the
gist of it.
1) Legally, all land belonged to the king.
2) The king could distribute those lands as he wished via "fee simple".
3) Once the lands had been distributed, they could be considered to be as if
owned (in the modern sense) as long as the holder met certain requirements;
that would be "seisin".
4) The holder of lands via "fee simple" could also distribute those lands in
the same manner ("fee simple"), or he could entail the entire property to
one male heir or "devise" some of it, much as a bequest in a will today.
5) However (and this is where I'm probably wrong), whether the property in
question was held by "fee simple" or had been "devised", it was just that:
held, NOT owned, even though many rights we now associate with "ownership"
were attached to those holdings and could be further distributed.
6) Thus someone could hold property via "fee simple", but because of various
"devizes", might not have any income from that property. What he WOULD have
is the "right" to have that property returned to his use, where he'd get the
income as well as any obligations, once the conditions of the "devize" were
no longer met, for whatever reason.
Do I get a passing grade?
Doug

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> "Lord Neville and Lord Latimer were two different people. Lord Neville
> became Earl of Westmorland. Lord Neville belonged to the family of Ralph
> Neville 1st Earl of Westmorland's first marriage, whereas Lord Latimer was
> descended from the second marriage (indeed, from the Earl of Salisbury).
> Hope that's a little clearer than mud."
>

[Doug said]
> Just about! They WERE both Nevilles, though?


Then there is Isabel Despenscer and her husbands, Richard Beauchamp and Richard Beauchamp. Not to mention John Paston and his sons, John and John, who all lived at the same time.

Katy

And Henry Holland Duke of Exeter's mother Anne, stepmother Anne, only sister Anne, wife Anne, only daughter Anne and wife's other daughter Anne.....
Marie

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Marie wrote:
> >
> > "Lord Neville and Lord Latimer were two different people. Lord Neville
> > became Earl of Westmorland. Lord Neville belonged to the family of Ralph
> > Neville 1st Earl of Westmorland's first marriage, whereas Lord Latimer was
> > descended from the second marriage (indeed, from the Earl of Salisbury).
> > Hope that's a little clearer than mud."
> >
>
> [Doug said]
> > Just about! They WERE both Nevilles, though?
>
>
> Then there is Isabel Despenscer and her husbands, Richard Beauchamp and Richard Beauchamp. Not to mention John Paston and his sons, John and John, who all lived at the same time.
>
> Katy
>

I'm up to Sapcote on my spreadsheet.  When I'm finished with Zouche of Bulwick I'll post the lot.  You'll never be confused again.


________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 15 November 2012, 23:18
Subject: Re: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and Richard


 
The Nevills can be a little confusing if you're not immersed in them 24
hours a day. I can never get Latimer/Berners straight in my head, which was
George and which Edward. I'm hoping it'll stick soon!

Karen

Karen

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:08:09 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and
Richard

Karen, you're right. As I said, I dont have access to my family trees, and
my brain's a bit foggy some of the time.
Marie

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, can you confirm this lord Latimer's descent from Salisbury? The only
> surviving Nevill grandson Salisbury had was John's son, George, duke of
> Bedford. I'd have thought this Latimer was descended from Salisbury's
> brother George, lord Latimer.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]
<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:40:59 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lord Neville and Lord Latimer were two different people. Lord Neville became
> Earl of Westmorland. Lord Neville belonged to the family of Ralph Neville
> 1st Earl of Westmorland's first marriage, whereas Lord Latimer was descended
> from the second marriage (indeed, from the Earl of Salisbury).
> Hope that's a little clearer than mud.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

You need to review the children of Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_de_Neville,_1st_Earl_of_Westmorland#Marriages_and_issue


Middleham was entailed (that is made inheritable in an unbroken male line only) on the children of his 2nd marriage to Joan Beaufort.

Of the sons born to Joan, Richard of Salisbury inherited Middleham which became his chief seat, and thereafter of his eldest son, Richard of Warwick. On Warwick's death his daughters could not inherit due to the entail (though the Countess could have had dower rights). 
Salisbury's 2nd son Thomas had died at Wakefield, so George son of John, Marquess Montagu, was the heir. The special award of Middleham to Richard was conditional on the offspring of Montagu surviving in the male line, which in fact expired with the unmarried George Neville in April 1483. All of Salisbury's younger sons had died young except George, Archbishop of York, who died in 1476 and as a cleric could not marry anyway.

Of the younger brothers of Salisbury, Bishop Robert died in 1457, and William, Lord Fauconberg died in 1463 leaving only daughters.

There also seem to have been a number of brothers who died young.

So that brings the line to George, Lord Latimer. He was evidently insane, but managed to sire 2 sons on his wife Elizabeth Beauchamp (elder half-sister of the Countess of Warwick) and died in December 1469, leaving his one-year old grandson Richard as his heir. Richard Neville, Lord Latimer, never seems to have claimed Middleham, confiscated by Henry VII after Bosworth on the grounds that Richard III held in at the time, but had numerous offspring including his heir John, who had 3 wives including Katherine Parr.

His male line died out eventually, though, as I believe the current heir male is a direct descendent of Lord Bergavenney, the next brother.

As you might expect, Westmorland's offspring from his first marriage long disputed the entail, but had to be content with a few Lordships in Durham centred around Raby. They kept the Earldom, but were probably the poorest Lords of that rank in England, and as discussed elsewhere were bilked of the Duchy of Exeter lands by successive kings.


Clear as an azure lake in midsummer.


incidentally, my datasheet currently has over 100 male Nevilles, others may be uncovered by further research...

________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 15 November 2012, 23:19
Subject: RE: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and Richard


 
Hi, David 

Thanks very much for posting this. Marie, you, too, but it really helps for me to have all the names and the (fairly complete) relationships. I am going to save this.

I did mention I wasn't sure about the name, except I recalled Latimer. But it's tough to remember who's who when one has read at most a passing mention about someone like Lord Latimer.

I don't suppose you have a copy of the will which devised the property to the Countess and then to Lord Latimer, if that's how it went. If it didn't specifically mention them, but devised property to heirs male or something like that, it may be necessary to not only have a copy of the will but a family tree showing the relationships to be able to determine who was entitled to what  with notes as to who predeceased whom and who was lost their property due to attainder, and so on. I have a feeling this could get complicated! <smile>

Bottom line  what I wrote earlier should still apply in the situation, because I was writing about whoever the male was who was entitled to the property on the death of the Countess, regardless of what his name was.

Still clear as mud, I hope! <smile>

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of david rayner
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:52 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and Richard

Richard Neville, Lord Latimer, was the grandson of Salisbury's insane brother George, Lord Latimer. His father Henry had been killed at Edgecote, while his mother was a Bourchier, so through Isabella of York he was a cousin of the York family.

He became heir male of the Ralph Neville-Joan Beaufort marriage (and so heir of Middleham) on the death of George, former Duke of Bedford in April 1483. Since he had not been guilty of treason he would have been legally able to enter Middleham as Lord at the age of 21 in 1489.

His title to the barony of Latimer was disputed by the Willoughbys, who were descended from the last Lord Latimer of the original creation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Latimer

________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected] <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 15 November 2012, 18:08
Subject: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and Richard

Karen, you're right. As I said, I dont have access to my family trees, and my brain's a bit foggy some of the time.
Marie

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, can you confirm this lord Latimer's descent from Salisbury? The only
> surviving Nevill grandson Salisbury had was John's son, George, duke of
> Bedford. I'd have thought this Latimer was descended from Salisbury's
> brother George, lord Latimer.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected] <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Reply-To: < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:40:59 -0000
> To: < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lord Neville and Lord Latimer were two different people. Lord Neville became
> Earl of Westmorland. Lord Neville belonged to the family of Ralph Neville
> 1st Earl of Westmorland's first marriage, whereas Lord Latimer was descended
> from the second marriage (indeed, from the Earl of Salisbury).
> Hope that's a little clearer than mud.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, thank you very much, David. I will peruse the Wikipedia link and get back to you. And some day I will look forward to getting a copy of your spreadsheet of people involved in the WotR, which should make it a lot easier to keep the Nevilles straight, not to mention the York's and the Lancaster's, etc etc.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne

-----Original Message-----

From: david rayner
Sent: 16 Nov 2012 23:39:07 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and Richard

You need to review the children of Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_de_Neville,_1st_Earl_of_Westmorland#Marriages_and_issue


Middleham was entailed (that is made inheritable in an unbroken male line only) on the children of his 2nd marriage to Joan Beaufort.

Of the sons born to Joan, Richard of Salisbury inherited Middleham which became his chief seat, and thereafter of his eldest son, Richard of Warwick. On Warwick's death his daughters could not inherit due to the entail (though the Countess could have had dower rights).
Salisbury's 2nd son Thomas had died at Wakefield, so George son of John, Marquess Montagu, was the heir. The special award of Middleham to Richard was conditional on the offspring of Montagu surviving in the male line, which in fact expired with the unmarried George Neville in April 1483. All of Salisbury's younger sons had died young except George, Archbishop of York, who died in 1476 and as a cleric could not marry anyway.

Of the younger brothers of Salisbury, Bishop Robert died in 1457, and William, Lord Fauconberg died in 1463 leaving only daughters.

There also seem to have been a number of brothers who died young.

So that brings the line to George, Lord Latimer. He was evidently insane, but managed to sire 2 sons on his wife Elizabeth Beauchamp (elder half-sister of the Countess of Warwick) and died in December 1469, leaving his one-year old grandson Richard as his heir. Richard Neville, Lord Latimer, never seems to have claimed Middleham, confiscated by Henry VII after Bosworth on the grounds that Richard III held in at the time, but had numerous offspring including his heir John, who had 3 wives including Katherine Parr.

His male line died out eventually, though, as I believe the current heir male is a direct descendent of Lord Bergavenney, the next brother.

As you might expect, Westmorland's offspring from his first marriage long disputed the entail, but had to be content with a few Lordships in Durham centred around Raby. They kept the Earldom, but were probably the poorest Lords of that rank in England, and as discussed elsewhere were bilked of the Duchy of Exeter lands by successive kings.


Clear as an azure lake in midsummer.


incidentally, my datasheet currently has over 100 male Nevilles, others may be uncovered by further research...

________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 15 November 2012, 23:19
Subject: RE: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and Richard



Hi, David 

Thanks very much for posting this. Marie, you, too, but it really helps for me to have all the names and the (fairly complete) relationships. I am going to save this.

I did mention I wasn't sure about the name, except I recalled Latimer. But it's tough to remember who's who when one has read at most a passing mention about someone like Lord Latimer.

I don't suppose you have a copy of the will which devised the property to the Countess and then to Lord Latimer, if that's how it went. If it didn't specifically mention them, but devised property to heirs male or something like that, it may be necessary to not only have a copy of the will but a family tree showing the relationships to be able to determine who was entitled to what  with notes as to who predeceased whom and who was lost their property due to attainder, and so on. I have a feeling this could get complicated! <smile>

Bottom line  what I wrote earlier should still apply in the situation, because I was writing about whoever the male was who was entitled to the property on the death of the Countess, regardless of what his name was.

Still clear as mud, I hope! <smile>

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of david rayner
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:52 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and Richard

Richard Neville, Lord Latimer, was the grandson of Salisbury's insane brother George, Lord Latimer. His father Henry had been killed at Edgecote, while his mother was a Bourchier, so through Isabella of York he was a cousin of the York family.

He became heir male of the Ralph Neville-Joan Beaufort marriage (and so heir of Middleham) on the death of George, former Duke of Bedford in April 1483. Since he had not been guilty of treason he would have been legally able to enter Middleham as Lord at the age of 21 in 1489.

His title to the barony of Latimer was disputed by the Willoughbys, who were descended from the last Lord Latimer of the original creation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Latimer

________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected] <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 15 November 2012, 18:08
Subject: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and Richard

Karen, you're right. As I said, I dont have access to my family trees, and my brain's a bit foggy some of the time.
Marie

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, can you confirm this lord Latimer's descent from Salisbury? The only
> surviving Nevill grandson Salisbury had was John's son, George, duke of
> Bedford. I'd have thought this Latimer was descended from Salisbury's
> brother George, lord Latimer.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected] <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Reply-To: < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:40:59 -0000
> To: < <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Anne of Exeter's Marraige and
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lord Neville and Lord Latimer were two different people. Lord Neville became
> Earl of Westmorland. Lord Neville belonged to the family of Ralph Neville
> 1st Earl of Westmorland's first marriage, whereas Lord Latimer was descended
> from the second marriage (indeed, from the Earl of Salisbury).
> Hope that's a little clearer than mud.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

david rayner wrote:

"You need to review the children of Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_de_Neville,_1st_Earl_of_Westmorland#Marriages_and_issue

Middleham was entailed (that is made inheritable in an unbroken male line
only) on the children of his 2nd marriage to Joan Beaufort.

Of the sons born to Joan, Richard of Salisbury inherited Middleham which
became his chief seat, and thereafter of his eldest son, Richard of Warwick.
On Warwick's death his daughters could not inherit due to the entail (though
the Countess could have had dower rights).
Salisbury's 2nd son Thomas had died at Wakefield, so George son of John,
Marquess Montagu, was the heir. The special award of Middleham to Richard
was conditional on the offspring of Montagu surviving in the male line,
which in fact expired with the unmarried George Neville in April 1483. All
of Salisbury's younger sons had died young except George, Archbishop of
York, who died in 1476 and as a cleric could not marry anyway.

Of the younger brothers of Salisbury, Bishop Robert died in 1457, and
William, Lord Fauconberg died in 1463 leaving only daughters.

There also seem to have been a number of brothers who died young.

So that brings the line to George, Lord Latimer. He was evidently insane,
but managed to sire 2 sons on his wife Elizabeth Beauchamp (elder
half-sister of the Countess of Warwick) and died in December 1469, leaving
his one-year old grandson Richard as his heir. Richard Neville, Lord
Latimer, never seems to have claimed Middleham, confiscated by Henry VII
after Bosworth on the grounds that Richard III held in at the time, but had
numerous offspring including his heir John, who had 3 wives including
Katherine Parr.

His male line died out eventually, though, as I believe the current heir
male is a direct descendent of Lord Bergavenney, the next brother.

As you might expect, Westmorland's offspring from his first marriage long
disputed the entail, but had to be content with a few Lordships in Durham
centred around Raby. They kept the Earldom, but were probably the poorest
Lords of that rank in England, and as discussed elsewhere were bilked of the
Duchy of Exeter lands by successive kings.

Clear as an azure lake in midsummer.

incidentally, my datasheet currently has over 100 male Nevilles, others may
be uncovered by further research..."

At least I now know WHY I get confused!
Thanks for information and link, I've copied it to my RIII folder.
Doug